On Jan. 19, 2010, the plaintiff, a 48-year-old children’s talent agent, was at her annual visit with her gynecologist when she was found to have a lesion in her left breast. A diagnostic mammogram was ordered, as was an ultrasound. These studies were read by a radiologist as showing probable fibroadenoma, a benign tumor made up of both glandular breast tissue and connective tissue. As a result, a six-month follow-up was recommended. The patient returned to the imaging center for an ultrasound on July 30, 2010. This time, the ultrasound was read by a different radiologist, who reported no change to the lesion identified in January 2010 and suggested routine screening mammograms of both breasts in six months. On Jan. 20, 2011, the patient returned to the imaging center, where a screening mammogram was read as within normal limits by a third radiologist. However, when the patient returned to her gynecologist for an annual exam on Jan. 19, 2011, the clinically-palpable lesion was thought to have grown in size. The patient then was referred to a surgeon for a biopsy, which resulted in a diagnosis of infiltrating ductal carcinoma, which is invasive breast cancer. Further workup revealed the presence of bony metastasis in her pelvis’ acetabulum. The patient sued all three radiologists for medical malpractice. She alleged that the ultrasound on July 30, 2010, was misread by the second radiologist, and that the lesion had grown and the borders had become irregular. The patient claimed that the standard of care required that a biopsy be done, which, if done, would have led to a diagnosis one year earlier, before the cancer had metastasized. Defense counsel contended that the care and treatment was at all times within accepted standards. Counsel also contended that the lesion on the ultrasound on July 30, 2010, had not changed from the study on Jan. 28, 2010, and that it was reasonable to conclude that the presentation was a benign fibroadenoma., The patient was ultimately diagnosed with infiltrating ductal carcinoma, which had metastasized into her acetabulum. She subsequently remained under treatment for the past two years and her disease at this time is thought to be stable. However, with Stage IV breast cancer, metastatic to the bone, her prognosis is poor. The plaintiff was not working at the time of her diagnosis, but she claimed her plan was to return to work, as her children were in school all day. The patient’s husband presented a derivative claim, seeking recovery for his loss of consortium.